Company financials

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the burden is lighter. The description adds real context beyond them: that metrics excludes valuation multiples, that compareToSector always covers every ThndrX-compared metric, and what the comparison returns (median/min/max, percentile). It does not state cost/rate-limit behavior, but for a read tool this is solid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with scope and returned content, then the compareToSector behavior. No filler and every clause carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and six parameters on a fairly complex data tool, the description covers what is returned and how the sector comparison behaves, which is the key missing structured context. The unresolved 'Egypt only' vs market-enum mismatch is the main completeness gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is warranted, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the dependency that 'metrics' does not affect the sector comparison and that compareToSector is the route to valuation multiples. This clarifies the interaction between two parameters rather than restating field docs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('financial statements and ratios of a listed company from Thndr') and enumerates the statement families returned, which distinguishes it from price/peer tools. However, the leading scope claim 'Egypt only' is misleading: the market parameter accepts 'us', 'uae' and 'simulator', so an agent reading only the description would wrongly exclude valid markets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives in-parameter routing (use compareToSector for P/E, P/B, P/S, PEG, EV/EBITDA since Thndr serves no valuation multiples), which is genuinely helpful. But it never says when to prefer this over siblings like get_peers, get_price_performance or get_instrument_details, so cross-tool selection is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.